NEVER RESIGN
Hoping for a draw such as this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxL11RIEb5Q 
Chess, by its very nature, is combative. Chess is war!
[...]
If indeed your situation is hopeless, then to pointlessly scamper about the board while forcing your opponent to continue to spend valuable time proving a point can be considered rude. Let common sense rule!
As if we don't get enough of these already, you had to go and revive one from years ago...
Am I the only one who'd fancy a nice tasty piece of cheese cake right now? 
It would be good to have a list of items to be negotiated before the game, such as when resignation will occur, what saying "good game" means after the game, what saying "Good Luck" before the game means, whether conditional moves will be considered arrogant, which are better pancakes or waffles, and perhaps, who was the best player of all time.
It would be good to have a list of items to be negotiated before the game, such as when resignation will occur, what saying "good game" means after the game, what saying "Good Luck" before the game means, whether conditional moves will be considered arrogant, which are better pancakes or waffles, and perhaps, who was the best player of all time.
You should start up a thread on that. And note that it would be threadjack-proof.
The rules are the rules. I still haven't seen the rule that resignation was mandatory. As long as somebody isn't cheating, I believe that they are playing with good sportsmanship, since the rules are being followed. Besides, if you have a win, you have a win. You'll eventually get your point.
Not to belabor the point, but it's the whole concept of 'sportsmanship' all about how you play within the confines of the rules? I don't think that sportsmanship is defined as 'not cheating'.
It would be good to have a list of items to be negotiated before the game, such as when resignation will occur, what saying "good game" means after the game, what saying "Good Luck" before the game means, whether conditional moves will be considered arrogant, which are better pancakes or waffles, and perhaps, who was the best player of all time.
You should start up a thread on that. And note that it would be threadjack-proof.
Done.
Not to belabor the point, but it's the whole concept of 'sportsmanship' all about how you play within the confines of the rules? I don't think that sportsmanship is defined as 'not cheating'.
Hey OZ, I know we've seen this thread a million times before. It's always worth a comment or two.
Not to belabor the point, but it's the whole concept of 'sportsmanship' all about how you play within the confines of the rules? I don't think that sportsmanship is defined as 'not cheating'.
Exactly, sportsmanship is about playing within the spirit of the competition or the spirit of the rules (i.e. there are unwritten rules in any sport).
It has nothing to do with expediting the win, it has to do with a sort of etiquette. Luckily the vast majority of players agree, and it's just the few new people that are still unsure.
Or perhaps some nice waffles....
If we all had something delicious to look forward to we wouldn't waste our time :)
I think you cannot use the fact that GM resign even a pawn down.
GM agree to agree to a draw even after 10 moves.
GM play perfect chess. therefore you cannot adobt this behaviour on to our level of chess.
on our level we make mistakes and the the last one to make a mistake loses.
it is the fact. I doubt that anyone will consider me playing on one or two times even in a hopeless position as not showing sportsmanship.
I think you just want a perfect game. a perfect game is an illusion.
I've beaten a GM before ==> ergo, GMs do not play perfect chess.
I've drawn GMs many times ==> ergo, GMs do not play perfect chess.
I've never got a draw or a win against a high-level computer, that I'm aware of.
LOL
Not to belabor the point, but it's the whole concept of 'sportsmanship' all about how you play within the confines of the rules? I don't think that sportsmanship is defined as 'not cheating'.
Hey OZ, I know we've seen this thread a million times before. It's always worth a comment or two.
Posting dictionary definitions for words we all already know is a way to make your argument seem less logically based and more semantically based even if your points are good.
As you say, fairness is part of being a good sportsman. When a scholastic kid plays all the way till mate, I don't get mad, because it's within the rules and is fair.
Non-beginner adults though have completely different reasons for playing till mate in hopeless positions, in these cases their intent makes it poor sportsmanship by way of bad character. It's basically the same thing as being a poor loser.
-----------
Whether you agree with it or not, (and especially whether it's in the rules or not) you should understand there are unwritten standards of conduct that come about by the existence of communities. Even if you don't understand such standards, if you are aware it's considered rude, you're being a poor sportsman by trying to hide behind the rules and behaving that way regardless.
The only exception, as I've said, is a beginner or scholastic player who needs to experience the technique or truly doesn't see that the position is lost (or perhaps is playing a <1000 rated player where material isn't much of an advantage).
I think you cannot use the fact that GM resign even a pawn down.
This is not true. They resign when it's hopeless... but some do play on to make sure (yes, even a pawn or many pawns down). The behavior that should be imitated (and has nothing to do with perfect play) is the sportsmanship of resigning when both players understand it's a win/loss, and the technique to convert it.
GM agree to agree to a draw even after 10 moves.
This is also agreed to be poor sportsmanship.
GM play perfect chess. Therefore you cannot adobt this behaviour on to our level of chess.
GMs do not play perfect chess. Moreover, "perfect chess" has nothing to do with the behavior (resigning in a lost position) being adopted by the vast majority of players.
on our level we make mistakes and the the last one to make a mistake loses.
This is not true. In an overwhelming position, you can make 20+ inaccuracies in a row and still win. You can even make many blunders in a row and still win.
it is the fact. I doubt that anyone will consider me playing on one or two times even in a hopeless position as not showing sportsmanship.
If you mean one or two moves, you're right, that's acceptable. If you find yourself in an OTB tournament playing till mate, it will be considered rude whether you think so or not.
I think you just want a perfect game. a perfect game is an illusion.
Begging the question.
now I don't dare not resign after the last post.
but no disrespect I have to ask how do I know that it isn't wishful thinking that this unwritten rule exist.
If I look at the forum where are 2 groups of people those who allow you to playon and those who get pretty angry and call you a bad sportsman if you not resign.
how can I know this isn't those who yell loudest that enforces some kind of unwritten law this practically becomes the law if no one not dares to follow there statement.
Moreover I would like to know the official statement from chess.com if they think an unwritten law exist.
now I don't dare not resign after the last post.
but no disrespect I have to ask how do I know that it isn't wishful thinking that this unwritten rule exist.
If I look at the forum where are 2 groups of people those who allow you to playon and those who get pretty angry and call you a bad sportsman if you not resign.
how can I know this isn't those who yell loudest that enforces some kind of unwritten law this practically becomes the law if no one dares to follow there statement.
Moreover I would like to know the official statement from chess.com if they think an unwritten law exist.
That's reasonable.
From my own experience I'll say I've seen at a tournament players get upset over the losing side playing it out. Even to have spectators take the losing player aside and explain why their behavior could be considered rude. I saw an expert who had a mate in less than 10 moves, slowly work to get an extra queen, and do a basic ladder mate to his defiant opponent, answering rudeness with rudeness.
In a club game, I once played on until I had a rook and few pawns against half my opponent's army. After the game, the guy got up without a word and didn't play me again the rest of the night (it was customary to play at least 2 games). I didn't mean to be rude, I was just in a cheeky kind of mood (I was playing very fast too, so it didn't slow him down too much). The guy did have to drive over an hour to get there.
So maybe it's just the experience (not completely a matter of skill). When you take a night off to go play chess (at a club) or a weekend off to play at a tournament (and pay for hotel and gas) it's different from a friendly online game that you can easily walk away from with little to no real loses. At a club, you may waste half your night playing some idiot who wont resign, or at a tournament (other than the time and money invested) you may not get enough rest or a real chance to eat before you next round.
-----------
Something that is just my personal opinion though, I get mad/frustrated online (even in blitz) when my opponent does the ladder mate when it's not the fastest way to mate. I see that as a kind of gloating, like see how easy it is form here, I've stopped thinking already.
Consequently, I always try to go for a pretty or fastest mate and I avoid the ladder mate when I can. 
I had a game once, which was played for money, with a clock, where the guy just declared a draw himself, got up, and left.
I think I had something like Rook and 4 pawns to rook and 3 pawns, and at the time I was shuffling pieces around waiting for him to make a mistake. In the meantime I was trying to come up with a plan if he didn't make a mistake.
I did not see the "stand up and leave" defense coming, I must say.
No, no, no, no, no!!
Bad thread! Go to your room!!